Sure I have. I've provided two solid reasons that back what I say.
And so far no one has even attempted to challenge either of those reasons.
Let's make it three reasons.
I have no idea why the third slipped my mind, as it is the most important distinction of the three.
Militiamen have the right to take their individual weapons (machine guns, grenades, bazookas, etc)
home with them when they are not on duty.
Note: keep and bear arms.
People in the National Guard, on the other hand, are not allowed
to bring their machine guns, grenades, and bazookas home with them.
Fortuately, it is clear & explicit in HELLER that
the right to keep and bear arms is not related to membership in militia.
It is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
Arguably, concerning government-sponsored militia ("selected militia"),
using government property, the owner thereof was within its rights to lend
and take back its own property at will.
Does the 2nd amendment define "Arms" well enough to cover stuff like RPG's and flame throwers?
also, the second amendment doesnt confer a right, it recognizes one that already existed.
Does the 2nd amendment define "Arms" well enough to cover stuff like RPG's and flame throwers?
Fortuately, it is clear & explicit in HELLER that
the right to keep and bear arms is not related to membership in militia.
It is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
While everyone has the right to keep and bear arms,
the Framers provided ample precedent for making everyone part of the militia as well.
Because of that, the government is within their rights to force anyone to be a militiaman.
And if they can force anyone to be a militiaman,
they can force anyone who wants to exercise their right-to-have-military-weapons to be a militiaman.
Arguably, concerning government-sponsored militia ("selected militia"),
using government property, the owner thereof was within its rights to lend
and take back its own property at will.
No. The word "keep" in keep and bear arms means that militiamen
can take their individual weapons home with them.
National Guardsmen are not allowed to take their weapons home with them
because the National Guard is a standing army and not a militia, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
But as far as weapons that militiamen had the right to take home with them vs. weapons that had to be left on base, that dividing line would be individual vs crew-served weapons.
The rebels on board United Flight 93 on 9/11 who successfully counter-attacked the Moslems
were a de facto well regulated militia, tho it is very unlikely that any of them gave it any thought.
( Thay were armed with their food cart n any weapons that thay coud creatively employ. )
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html
oralloy wrote:they can force anyone who wants to exercise their right-to-have-military-weapons to be a militiaman.
U r referring to the need of conscription,
not to any person's desire to exercise his rights.
Obviously, that was urgently necessary, a matter of life-and-death
qua "the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare,
is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." (Thomas Jefferson)
Dresden is not the topic here, however, i provided Air Force sources which showed both that the RAF did not bomb the city center,
and that the USAAF ordnance mix was that developed by the RAF earlier in the war to cause fire storms.
Furthermore, i provided sources that the USAAF bombing did start a fire storm, and some of those witnesses were American POWs.
Article One, Section Eight does not say that those are the only uses for the militia,
nor does it say that the militia may not be used outside the United States.
Article One, Section Nine, Limits on Congress, does not mention either of your ideosyncratic objections. You may not like it, but that means nothing constitutionally.
Nor does the constitution prohibit members of the militia from serving in the regular armed forces,
and the Dick Act provides for an unorganizedd militia.
You have claimed that there is no militia as mentioned in the first clause of the second amendment--not proven. Not even close.
oralloy wrote:But as far as weapons that militiamen had the right to take home with them vs. weapons that had to be left on base, that dividing line would be individual vs crew-served weapons.
So, since a suitcase nuke can be carried by one person, it could be taken home.
Or are you going to change your mind again?
Concerning militia, the critical criterion
is whether thay r private militia, formerly called "well regulated militia"
or
whether thay r government sponsored militia, formerly called "selected militia".
( In theory, the 2 militia might go to war against one another. )
The militia of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution r very obviously selected militia.
That does not apply to the militia of the 2nd Amendment.
David
Select militia was a militia where only part of the populace participated.
The opposite of a select militia was a general militia, where the entire populace participated.
Both kinds were government sponsored.
"Well-regulated militia" meant something entirely different. That was a term for a militia that had trained to the extent that they could fight as a coherent unit instead of as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals.
Note the way Alexander Hamilton used the term in Federalist 29, when he argued for a select militia because they would receive greater training:
Quote:The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html
The rebels on board United Flight 93 on 9/11 who successfully counter-attacked the Moslems
were a de facto well regulated militia, tho it is very unlikely that any of them gave it any thought.
( Thay were armed with their food cart n any weapons that thay coud creatively employ. )
Well-regulated militia refers to a militia that has trained to the extent that they can fight
as a coordinated body instead of as an uncoordinated bunch of individuals.
Note the way Alexander Hamilton used the term in Federalist 29,
when he argued for a select militia because they would receive greater training:
Quote:The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html
The people in the plane likely had no training, and certainly not
with each other, so they would not have counted as well-regulated.
oralloy wrote:they can force anyone who wants to exercise their right-to-have-military-weapons to be a militiaman.
U r referring to the need of conscription,
not to any person's desire to exercise his rights.
Obviously, that was urgently necessary, a matter of life-and-death
qua "the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare,
is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." (Thomas Jefferson)
Yes. The Founding Fathers conscripted the entire populace into the militia.
Based on that precedent, the government could justify conscripting into the militia
anyone who chose to own military weapons.
oralloy wrote:Yes. The Founding Fathers conscripted the entire populace into the militia.
The entire populace was ALREADY the militia,
before any conscripting got done.
Thay did not need any GOVERNMENT to make them the militia.
oralloy wrote:Based on that precedent, the government could justify conscripting into the militia
anyone who chose to own military weapons.
Y the qualifier, Oralloy??
Permit me to offer the comments of Stephen P. Halbrook, Esq. and his quotes
of Andrew Fletcher in his A Discourse of Government With Relation to Militias of 1698.
( Dr. Halbrook is an eminent scholar of constitutional history
and has been very successful as a trial attorney in defending the right to KABA.
The USSC cited to his authority quite a few times, in HELLER.)
Excerpted from That Every Man Be Armed (U. of N.M. Press 1984) by Halbrook:
He quotes Fletcher's lamentation:
"We have quitted our ancient security, and put the militia into the power of the King."
Fletcher described a militia not subject to the authority of the chief executive as a "well-regulated" militia.
" Let us now consider whether we may not be able to defend ourselves by well-regulated militias
against any foreign force, though never so formidable: that these nations may be free from the fears
of invasion from abroad, as well as from the danger of slavery at home."
A Discourse of Government With Relation to Militias of 1698
All emfasis has been added by David.
The subjects formerly had a real security for their liberty, by having the sword in their own hands. That security, which is the greatest of all others, is lost; and not only so, but the sword is put into the hand of the king by his power over the militia. All this is not enough; but we must have in both kingdoms standing armies of mercenaries, who for the most part have no other way to subsist, and consequently are capable to execute any commands: and yet every man must think his liberties as safe as ever, under pain of being thought disaffected to the monarchy. But sure it must not be the ancient limited and legal monarchies of Scotland and England that these gentlemen mean. It must be a French fashion of monarchy, where the king has power to do what he pleases, and the people no security for anything they possess. We have quitted our ancient security, and put the militia into the power of the king. The only remaining security we have is, that no standing armies were ever yet allowed in time of peace, the parliament of England having so often and so expressly declared them to be contrary to law: and that of Scotland having not only declared them to be a grievance, but made the keeping them up an article in the forfeiture of the late King James. If a standing army be allowed, what difference will there be between the government we shall then live under, and any kind of government under a good prince? Of which there have been some in the most despotic tyrannies. If these be limited and not absolute monarchies, then, as there are conditions, so there ought to be securities on both sides. The barons never pretended that their militias should be constantly on foot, and together in bodies in times of peace. It is evident that would have subverted the constitution, and made every one of them a petty tyrant. And it is as evident, that standing forces are the fittest instruments to make a tyrant. Whoever is for making the king's power too great or too little, is an enemy to the monarchy. But to give him standing armies, puts his power beyond control, and consequently makes him absolute. If the people had any other real security for their liberty than that there be no standing armies in time of peace, there might be some colour to demand them. But if that only remaining security be taken away from the people, we have destroyed these monarchies.
It is pretended we are in hazard of being invaded by a powerful enemy; shall we therefore destroy our government? What is it then (p.16)that we would defend? Is it our persons, by the ruin of our government? in what then shall we be gainers? In saving our lives by the loss of our liberties? if our pleasures and luxury make us live like brutes, it seems we must not pretend to reason any better than they. I would fain know, if there be any other way of making a prince absolute, than by allowing him a standing army: if by it all princes have not been made absolute; if without it, any. Whether our enemies shall conquer us is uncertain; but whether standing armies will enslave us, neither reason nor experience will suffer us to doubt. It is therefore evident that no pretence of danger from abroad can be an argument to keep up standing armies or any mercenary forces.
Let us now consider whether we may not be able to defend ourselves by well-regulated militias against any foreign force, though never so formidable: that these nations may be free from the fears of invasion from abroad, as well as from the danger of slavery at home.
After the barons had lost the military service of their vassals, militias of some kind or other were established in most parts of Europe. But the prince having everywhere the power of naming and preferring the officers of these militias, they could be no balance in government as the former were. And he that will consider what has been said in this discourse, will easily perceive that the essential quality requisite to such a militia, as might fully answer the ends of the former, must be, that the officers should be named and preferred, as well as they and the soldiers paid, by the people that set them out. So that if princes look upon the present militias as not capable of defending a nation against foreign armies, the people have little reason to entrust them with the defence of their liberties.
And though upon the dissolution of that ancient militia under the barons, which made these nations so great and glorious, by setting up militias generally through Europe, the sword came not into the hands of the Commons, which was the only thing could have continued the former balance of government, but was everywhere put into the hands of the king: nevertheless ambitious princes, who aimed at absolute power, thinking they could never use it effectually to that end, unless it were wielded by mercenaries, and men that had no other interest in the commonwealth than their pay, have still endeavoured by all means to discredit militias, and render them burdensome to the people, by never suffering them to be upon any right, or so much as tolerable foot, and all to persuade the necessity of standing forces. And indeed (p.17)they have succeeded too well in this design: for the greatest part of the world has been fooled into an opinion that a militia cannot be made serviceable. I shall not say it was only militias could conquer the world; and that princes to have succeeded fully in the design before-mentioned must have destroyed all the history and memory of ancient governments, where the accounts of so many excellent models of militia are yet extant. I know the prejudice and ignorance of the world concerning the art of war, as it was practised by the ancients; though what remains of that knowledge in their writings be sufficient to give a mean opinion of the modem discipline. For this reason I shall examine, by what has passed of late years in these nations, whether experience have convinced us, that officers bred in foreign wars, be so far preferable to others who have been under no other discipline than that of an ordinary and ill-regulated militia; and if the commonalty of both kingdoms, at their first entrance upon service, be not as capable of a resolute military action, as any standing forces. This doubt will be fully resolved, by considering the actions of the marquis of Montrose, which may be compared, all circumstances considered, with those of Caesar, as well for the military skill, as the bad tendency of them; though the marquis had never served abroad, nor seen any action, before the six victories, which, with numbers much inferior to those of his enemies, he obtained in one year; and the most considerable of them were chiefly gained by the assistance of the tenants and vassals of the family of Gordon. The battle of Naseby will be a farther illustration of this matter, which is generally thought to have been the deciding action of the late civil war. The number of forces was equal on both sides; nor was there any advantage in the ground, or extraordinary accident that happened during the fight, which could be of considerable importance to either. In the army of the parliament, nine only of the officers had served abroad, and most of the soldiers were apprentices drawn out of London but two months before. In the king's army there were above a thousand officers that had served in foreign parts: yet was that army routed and broken by those new-raised apprentices; who were observed to be obedient to command, and brave in fight; not only in that action, but on all occasions during that active campaign. The people of these nations are not a dastardly crew, like those born in misery under oppression and slavery, who must have time to rub off that fear, cowardice, and stupidity which they bring from home. And though officers seem to stand in more need of experience than private soldiers; yet in that battle it was seen that the sobriety and (p.18)principle of the officers on the one side, prevailed over the experience of those on the other.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/fletcher.asp
Oralloy, will u acknowledge that if a government collapses, ends and becomes extinct,
that the citizens, who remain alive, can arm themselves and act as a group ?
There is not only no evidence that the RAF fire bombed the city center of Dresden,
U. S. Air Force documents, which i linked, clearly stated that that was done by the USAAF. The RAF bombed at night, the firestorm referred to by the witnesses took place in the day time. Firestorms have a short life, conditioned by the amount of oxygen available in the area of their effect.
Once again, you ideosyncratic interpretation of the constitution is meaningless. Were one to follow what you allege to be the constraints on the Congress, it would be virtually powerless, because detailed, specific powers are not explicitly granted to it. Regardless of what you allege, that is not the case, nor the interpretation of the courts.
No such objection was raised by anyone during the War of 1812, when militia were used to invade Canada, including by those opposed to "Mr. Madison's War."
As well, that the National Guard cannot take grenades home with them is not relevant.
You have failed to make your case,
